5 Rhode Island opinions name it 2 courts 1989–2007 0 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Rhode Island courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
State v. Portesgreen1 sentence2007See State v. Portes , 840 A.2d 1131 , 1136 (R.I. 2004); State v. Locke , 418 A.2d 843 , 847 (R.I. 1980) Thus, in the present case, the retrieval of the images from defendant's digital cameras is a violation of the Fourth Amendment only if defendant had a reasonable expectation of privacy in the cameras, and the search fell within no acknowledged exception. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Boningreen1 sentence2004See Opperman, 428 U.S. at 372 , 96 S.Ct. 3092 ; State v. Bonin, 591 A.2d 38, 39 (R.I.1991) (per curiam). | 1 | 1 |
South Dakota v. Oppermangreen2 sentences2004See Opperman, 428 U.S. at 372 , 96 S.Ct. 3092 ; State v. Bonin, 591 A.2d 38, 39 (R.I.1991) (per curiam). 2004See Opperman, 428 U.S. at 372 , 96 S.Ct. 3092 ; State v. Bonin, 591 A.2d 38, 39 (R.I.1991) (per curiam). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Lourogreen1 sentence1991See, e.g., State v. Louro, 589 A.2d 1197, 1198 (R.I., 1991). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Rhode Island. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Katz v. United States
green
1 sentence2007Katz v. United States , 389 U.S. 347 , 361 , (1967). | 1 | 2007–2007 |
Miranda v. Arizona
green
1 sentence2007Although defendant had a reasonable expectation of privacy in the digital cameras, the search was conducted incident to a valid arrest, a recognized exception to the search warrant requirement. 1 Miranda v. Arizona , 384 U.S. 436 , 444-45 (1966). 2 The Fourth Amendment which is substantively the same as article 1 , section 6 , of the Rhode Island Constitution, provides: The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or a | 1 | 2007–2007 |
State v. Locke
green
1 sentence2007See State v. Portes , 840 A.2d 1131 , 1136 (R.I. 2004); State v. Locke , 418 A.2d 843 , 847 (R.I. 1980) Thus, in the present case, the retrieval of the images from defendant's digital cameras is a violation of the Fourth Amendment only if defendant had a reasonable expectation of privacy in the cameras, and the search fell within no acknowledged exception. | 1 | 2007–2007 |
Schneckloth v. Bustamonte
green
2 sentences2002Schneckloth v. Bustamonte , 412 U.S. 218 , 93 S.Ct. 2041 , 36 L.Ed.2d 854 (1973). 2002Schneckloth v. Bustamonte , 412 U.S. 218 , 93 S.Ct. 2041 , 36 L.Ed.2d 854 (1973). | 1 | 2002–2002 |
Illinois v. Gates
green
2 sentences1989I THE VALIDITY OF THE SEARCH WARRANT The defendant contends in substance that the affidavit of Detective Mullen did not meet the totality of the circumstances test as set forth in Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213 , 103 S.Ct. 2317 , 76 L.Ed.2d 527 (1983), as that case has been interpreted by this court in State v. Ricci, 472 A.2d 291 (R.I.1984), and later considered in State v. Pacheco, 481 A.2d 1009 (R.I.1984). 1989I THE VALIDITY OF THE SEARCH WARRANT The defendant contends in substance that the affidavit of Detective Mullen did not meet the totality of the circumstances test as set forth in Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213 , 103 S.Ct. 2317 , 76 L.Ed.2d 527 (1983), as that case has been interpreted by this court in State v. Ricci, 472 A.2d 291 (R.I.1984), and later considered in State v. Pacheco, 481 A.2d 1009 (R.I.1984). | 1 | 1989–1989 |
State v. Ricci
green
1 sentence1989I THE VALIDITY OF THE SEARCH WARRANT The defendant contends in substance that the affidavit of Detective Mullen did not meet the totality of the circumstances test as set forth in Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213 , 103 S.Ct. 2317 , 76 L.Ed.2d 527 (1983), as that case has been interpreted by this court in State v. Ricci, 472 A.2d 291 (R.I.1984), and later considered in State v. Pacheco, 481 A.2d 1009 (R.I.1984). | 1 | 1989–1989 |
State v. Pacheco
green
1 sentence1989I THE VALIDITY OF THE SEARCH WARRANT The defendant contends in substance that the affidavit of Detective Mullen did not meet the totality of the circumstances test as set forth in Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213 , 103 S.Ct. 2317 , 76 L.Ed.2d 527 (1983), as that case has been interpreted by this court in State v. Ricci, 472 A.2d 291 (R.I.1984), and later considered in State v. Pacheco, 481 A.2d 1009 (R.I.1984). | 1 | 1989–1989 |
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.